--- 1/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06.txt 2019-03-09 05:13:17.795584534 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07.txt 2019-03-09 05:13:17.831585400 -0800 @@ -1,96 +1,96 @@ Network Working Group C. Hopps Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Updates: 8407 (if approved) L. Berger Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, LLC. -Expires: September 3, 2019 D. Bogdanovic +Expires: September 10, 2019 D. Bogdanovic Volta Networks - March 2, 2019 + March 9, 2019 YANG Module Tags - draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06 + draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07 Abstract This document provides for the association of tags with YANG modules. The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and organize modules. A method for defining, reading and writing a modules tags is provided. Tags may be standardized and assigned during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically defined and set by users. This document also provides guidance to - future model writers, as such, this document updates RFC8407. + future model writers; as such, this document updates RFC8407. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags . . . . . . . 3 + 1.1. Some possible use cases for YANG module tags . . . . . . 3 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Tag Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. IETF Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Vendor Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. User Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Reserved Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Tag Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Module Definition Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Implementation Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. User Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 4. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. YANG Module Tag Prefixes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. YANG Module Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 7.3. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7.4. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 11 + 7.3. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.4. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction The use of tags for classification and organization is fairly ubiquitous not only within IETF protocols, but in the internet itself (e.g., "#hashtags"). One benefit of using tags for organization over a rigid structure is that it is more flexible and can more easily adapt over time as technologies evolve. Tags can be usefully standardized, but they can also serve as a non-standardized mechanism available for users to define themselves. This document provides a @@ -110,158 +110,173 @@ This document also defines an IANA registry for tag prefixes as well as a set of globally assigned tags. Section 6 provides guidelines for authors of YANG data models. This document updates [RFC8407]. The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342]. -1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags +1.1. Some possible use cases for YANG module tags - During this documents progression there were requests for example + During this documents's development there were requests for example uses of module tags. The following are a few example use cases for tags. This list is certainly not exhaustive. One example use of tags would be to help filter different discrete - categories of YANG modules supported by a device. E.g., if modules - are suitably tagged, then an XPath query can be used to list all of - the vendor modules supported by a device. + categories of YANG modules supported by a device. For example, if + modules are suitably tagged, then an XPath query can be used to list + all of the vendor modules supported by a device. Tags can also be used to help coordination when multiple semi- - independent clients are interacting with the same devices. E.g., one - management client could mark that some modules should not be used - because they have not been verified to behave correctly, so that - other management clients avoid querying the data associated with - those modules. + independent clients are interacting with the same devices. For + example, one management client could mark that some modules should + not be used because they have not been verified to behave correctly, + so that other management clients avoid querying the data associated + with those modules. Tag classification is useful for users searching module repositories - (e.g. YANG catalog). A query restricted to the 'ietf:routing' + (e.g., YANG catalog). A query restricted to the 'ietf:routing' module tag could be used to return only the IETF YANG modules associated with routing. Without tags, a user would need to know the name of all the IETF routing protocol YANG modules. Future management protocol extensions could allow for filtering queries of configuration or operational state on a server based on - tags. E.g., return all operational state related to system- + tags. For example, return all operational state related to system- management. 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. Tag Values All tags SHOULD begin with a prefix indicating who owns their - definition. An IANA registry is used to support standardizing tag - prefixes Section 7.1. Currently 3 prefixes are defined with all - others reserved. No further structure is imposed by this document on - the value following the standard prefix, and the value can contain - any yang type 'string' characters except carriage-returns, newlines - and tabs. + definition. An IANA registry (Section 7.1) is used to support + standardizing tag prefixes. Currently 3 prefixes are defined. No + further structure is imposed by this document on the value following + the standard prefix, and the value can contain any YANG type 'string' + characters except carriage-returns, newlines and tabs. Again, except for the conflict-avoiding prefix, this document is not specifying any structure on (i.e., restricting) the tag values on purpose. The intent is to avoid arbitrarily restricting the values that designers, implementers and users can use. As a result of this choice, designers, implementers, and users are free to add or not add any structure they may require to their own tag values. 2.1. IETF Standard Tags An IETF standard tag is a tag that has the prefix "ietf:". All IETF standard tags are registered with IANA in a registry defined later in - this document Section 7.2. + this document (Section 7.2). 2.2. Vendor Tags A vendor tag is a tag that has the prefix "vendor:". These tags are defined by the vendor that implements the module, and are not standardized; however, it is RECOMMENDED that the vendor include extra identification in the tag to avoid collisions such as using the - enterpise or organization name follwing the "vendor:" prefix (e.g., + enterpise or organization name following the "vendor:" prefix (e.g., vendor:example.com:vendor-defined-classifier). 2.3. User Tags A user tag is any tag that has the prefix "user:". These tags are defined by the user/administrator and will never be standardized. + Users are not required to use the "user:" prefix; however, doing so + is RECOMMENDED as it helps avoid collisions. 2.4. Reserved Tags Any tag not starting with the prefix "ietf:", "vendor:" or "user:" is - reserved for future standardization. + reserved for future standardization. These tag values are not + invalid, but simply reserved in the context of standardization. 3. Tag Management Tags can become associated with a module in a number of ways. Tags may be defined and associated at module design time, at implementation time, or via user administrative control. As the main consumer of tags are users, users may also remove any tag, no matter how the tag became associated with a module. 3.1. Module Definition Tagging A module definition MAY indicate a set of tags to be added by the module implementer. These design time tags are indicated using the module-tag extension statement. - If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also - be Section 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new - standard tags to the IANA registry, and the IANA registry can serve - as a check against duplication. + If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the + tags MUST be IETF Standard Tags (2.1). Thus, new modules can drive + the addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in + Section 7.2, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against + duplication. 3.2. Implementation Tagging An implementation MAY include additional tags associated with a - module. These tags SHOULD be standard or vendor specific tags. + module. These tags SHOULD be IETF Standard or vendor specific tags. 3.3. User Tagging - Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed by the user using normal - configuration mechanisms. + Tags of any kind, with or without a prefix, can be assigned and + removed by the user using normal configuration mechanisms. In order + to remove a tag from the operational datastore the user adds a + matching "masked-tag" entry for a given module. 4. Tags Module Structure 4.1. Tags Module Tree The tree associated with the "ietf-module-tags" module follows. The meaning of the symbols can be found in [RFC8340]. module: ietf-module-tags +--rw module-tags +--rw module* [name] +--rw name yang:yang-identifier +--rw tag* tag +--rw masked-tag* tag 4.2. YANG Module - file "ietf-module-tags@2019-03-02.yang" + file "ietf-module-tags@2019-03-09.yang" module ietf-module-tags { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags"; prefix tags; import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; } organization "IETF NetMod Working Group (NetMod)"; contact - "NetMod Working Group - "; + "WG Web: + WG List: + + Author: Christian Hopps + + + Author: Lou Berger + + + Author: Dean Bogdanovic + "; // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and // remove this note. description "This module describes a mechanism associating tags with YANG modules. Tags may be IANA assigned or privately defined. Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. @@ -279,44 +294,46 @@ described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; // RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication // and RFC number and remove this note. - revision 2019-03-02 { + revision 2019-03-09 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC XXXX: YANG Module Tags"; } typedef tag { type string { length "1..max"; - pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+'; + pattern '[\S ]+'; } description - "A tag value is composed of a standard prefix followed by any - type 'string' value that does not include carriage return, - newline or tab characters."; + "A tag is a type 'string' value that does not include carriage + return, newline or tab characters. It SHOULD begin with a + standard prefix; however, tags without a standard prefix + SHOULD NOT be treated as invalid."; } extension module-tag { argument tag; description "The argument 'tag' is of type 'tag'. This extension statement is used by module authors to indicate the tags that SHOULD be added automatically by the system. As such the origin of the - value for the pre-defined tags should be set to 'system'."; + value for the pre-defined tags should be set to 'system' + [RFC8342]."; } container module-tags { description "Contains the list of modules and their associated tags"; list module { key "name"; description "A list of modules and their associated tags"; leaf name { @@ -482,52 +499,63 @@ | | TACAC+, SNMP, netconf, | | | | ...). | | | | | | | ietf:oam | Relates to Operations, | [This | | | Administration, and | document] | | | Maintenance (e.g., BFD). | | | | | | | ietf:routing | Relates to routing. | [This | | | | document] | | | | | + | ietf:security | Related to security. | [This | + | | | document] | + | | | | | ietf:signaling | Relates to control plane | [This | | | signaling. | document] | | | | | | ietf:link-management | Relates to link | [This | | | management. | document] | +----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+ 7.3. Updates to the IETF XML Registry This document registers a URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration has been made: - URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags + URI: + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags - Registrant Contact: The IESG. + Registrant Contact: + The IESG. - XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. + XML: + N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. 7.4. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry This document registers one YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], the following registration has been made: - name: ietf-module-tags + name: + ietf-module-tags - namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags + namespace: + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags - prefix: tags - reference: RFC XXXX (RFC Ed.: replace XXX with actual RFC number and - remove this note.) + prefix: + tags + + reference: + RFC XXXX (RFC Ed.: replace XXX with actual RFC number and remove + this note.) 8. Security Considerations The YANG module defined in this memo is designed to be accessed via the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is SSH [RFC6242]. This document adds the ability to associate tag meta-data with YANG modules. This document does not define any actions based on these @@ -554,58 +582,58 @@ [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . + [RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module + Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July + 2017, . + + [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., + and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture + (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, + . + + [RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of + Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018, + . + 9.2. Informative References [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, . [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, . - [RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module - Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July - 2017, . - [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, . - [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., - and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture - (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, - . - - [RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of - Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018, - . - Appendix A. Examples The following is a fictional example result from a query of the module tags list. For the sake of brevity only a few module results are imagined. ietf-bfd